[Buddha-l] Re: Natural lucidity for Socrates

[Dan Lusthaus]

Hi Joy,

>Jean Filliozat,[...] even thinks Hyppolytus is describing Shivaists on the
borders of the river Tungavenaa.

Not likely.


>He also think the very unGreek and rather Indian character of the Timæus
could be a sign of possible non-Greek influences.

I've never thought of the Timaeus as Indian in character, though Plato does
acknowledge explicitly Egyptian influences on his thinking (esp. re: his
theory of forms), and he is clearly also influenced by the Pythagoreans (and
Pythagoras did travel Asia Minor where he picked up -- or had realizations
of -- some of his most important ideas, such as the tuning theory and ratios
that underpinned his mathematical models).

> What is obvious to me is that there were exchanges, since the knowledge
has been reported, as confused as it may be, and that it's rather
unreasonable than reasonable to doubt that.

There was contact. No doubt. And Asian thought was known in the Hellenistic
world, especially its eastern portions. But often when one advocates a
theory of influence (e.g., the Greeks got it from the Indians; or the
Indians got it from the Greeks) for which the evidence is meager, it is more
expression of one's own values and identifications than a fair or accurate
description of history. Oh, these Greeks seem to have been working on this
"good" idea at that time -- but Greeks are bozos compared to wise
chakra-enhanced Indians, so these good ideas must have been imported to them
from India rather than native born. But such stories can go both ways. Did
the famous four-cornered negation (x is, x is not, both, neither) come to
India from Greece (Gorgias, Plato's contemporary, is recorded to have used
it), perhaps brought by Phyrro? Since there is no *written* proof, one can
argue, all the attempts to put such ideas back to the time of the Buddha are
later fabrications retroactively interpolated. While that's probably not the
case, disproving such a claim would be no easy task.

>I am not sure I would be able to tell the difference between a non-mental
experience of pantheism, neoplatonic monism or the equality of all dharmas
in their essence or a simple transe.

Read some of the early Church Fathers. The hairs they split to differentiate
one sect from another, one heresy from another, etc., can quickly highlight
contrasts. On the other hand, they could distort and conflate the Others
into an Other just as easily (that was sort of the purpose). Even better,
get two Monists or non-dualists in a room together and watch the differences
and name-calling fly. Very instructive. ("You're non-dualism is not as good
as my non-dualism because...")

cheers,
Dan